Can a left-wing form of government co-exsist within a constitutional monarchy?

[Auguste Mensdorff-Pouilly]

As both a monarchist and a left-winger, I was wondering whether the two could effectively work together. If the monarch was there purely to act as a figurehead and symbol of that particular country, surely there would be no problem?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What does "left-wing form of government" mean, here? Social-democracy? The dictatorship of the proletariat? Socialism? The first can coexist with the monarchy alright, but it has nothing to do with what we want. The d.o.t.p can technically coexist with a monarchy in that it's not technically impossible, but why would it? If the workers rule, why would they let someone live in palaces and wear silly hats at immense cost just because their ancestors were 10th century warlords? And in socialism, there is no government, period.

[RedWorker]

Well, liberalism was left-wing (or even far-left) a long time ago (I'm thinking 1800s onwards here) and some of its trends definitely co-existed with the monarchy. So this question is really pointless. Communists, revolutionary socialists including Marxists and anarchists, are enemies of the status quo, we are irreconcilably opposed to the monarchy, which is one of its most clownish institutions and even left liberals stand against.

[Hatshepsut]

Why would a communist society retain a figurehead monarch? To play the role of Queen Bee in the hive, laying eggs throughout life as busy workers keep her fed? At least the honeybee queen has a function of keeping the hive's numbers replenished; whereas a human monarch is pure social parasite, even more so if figurehead instead of real political leader.

My guess is that countries like Britain or Denmark haven't gone republican because the elimination of fetishes from a society often involves violence, so that there's no reason for them to depose Elizabeth or Margarethe if the constitutional machinery of parliamentary democracy is already in place despite the feudal holdover.

Traditionally, the term "liberal" refers to those who favor rapid social change, while "conservatives" oppose this. So we can have conservatives who are Leftists, in a left-governed nation contemplating a tilt toward the Right. Bourgeois liberals in the 1700s wanted to switch their societies from aristocracy to freeholding of property by any private individual able to acquire it. While this change was substantial enough to engender bitter struggles, the state was still to enforce the property rights in either case.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not sure about Denmark, but I would imagine it's the same as in the UK, where the queen is a major landowner, as are the members of her family. The particular arrangement corresponds to a historic compromise between British capitalists and landowners, in the face of rising proletarian militancy.

Liberals are simply another bourgeois faction, historically one of the more progressive ones, but (1) they're not "left" in the same sense as socialists are, and (2) they're not diametrically opposed to conservatives, this isn't the period of the blancos and the colorados anymore and liberals and conservatives are for the most part the same.

[Ritzy Cat]

And in socialism, there is no government, period.

There would be government, wouldn't there? But no state? As in, "lack of government" isn't a pre-requisite for full socialism ?

- - -

I feel like all monarchies will be abolished by the proletarian revolution and the revolution will cause all remaining ones to disband.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There would be government, wouldn't there? But no state? As in, "lack of government" isn't a pre-requisite for full socialism ?

That is, to be honest, an extremely weird formulation I've only encountered on the Internet. I don't know why people distinguish between "state" and "government" in this way. In any case, I think Engels was pretty clear on this:

Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.

In socialism there will be no "socialist" government, no "socialist" parliament or cabinet, and there will be no government of persons - when it comes to their personal lives people will be absolutely free. It is "only" in the administration of processes of production that we will have administration and central coordination.

[Armchair Partisan]

If the monarch was there purely to act as a figurehead and symbol of that particular country, surely there would be no problem?

A monarch is a figurehead and symbol of what we fight against, not for.

[p0is0n]

That is, to be honest, an extremely weird formulation I've only encountered on the Internet. I don't know why people distinguish between "state" and "government" in this way. In any case, I think Engels was pretty clear on this:


Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.


In socialism there will be no "socialist" government, no "socialist" parliament or cabinet, and there will be no government of persons - when it comes to their personal lives people will be absolutely free. It is "only" in the administration of processes of production that we will have administration and central coordination.


I was under the impression that the government in the Marxist sense (as in communist society) was the mere administration of society, while the state specifically was an instrument of class rule. Maybe I was wrong.

My interpretation of the quote by Engels is that since classes no longer exist, the state, as an instrument of class rule, simply ceases to exist because the premise for its existence has ceased to exist and by extension it no longer has a function, and is thus replaced by the simple "apolitical" administration of things. Am I wrong?

When you say the administration of the process of production, I assume you mean only the process of production - what about other vital societal services? What about logistical things? Surely they will be administered by a central body of persons? If yes, does this not qualify as government?

[PhoenixAsh]

Wait....you are in favor of a hereditary system of government leadership, privilege and the maintenance of feudalist expressions? Why?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think as Xhar Xhar Binks correctly said, the question isn't whether or not it's impossible, the question is why on earth would we ever want it? It's completely possible for a reformist social democracy to have a monarch (UK after ww2 for instance), and it is for a proletarian state too, but why on earth would the proles want to constitutionally separate a single family from the rest of the community and elevate them above everyone else? Why would they want a family to exist which exclusively has the privileges of the previous economic system? Out of some perverse sense of national identity? Basically, they would be saying "lets create a classless society, except for this one exception we're making out of respect for traditions nobody cares about anymore".

There are problems on an international level. Communism is an international movement that brings people together into systems of common governance. Why would an international movement endorse special families for parts of it? What if the hypothetical European-wide communist revolution hits - who would the people of Europe select as their powerless, privileged and elevated family - would we just go with the House of Windsor because William and Harry are handsome? Or will we go with the Dutch royal family to appease the continentals? Do they get to keep their palaces, or do we turn them into museums?

Can someone really imagine monarchs waving from their palace at a march of empowered proletarians? It's all so silly. Hopefully, any monarch projected to such a ridiculous position by a naive working class would have the sense to recognize the absurdity and abdicate.

[Antiochus]

As both a monarchist and a left-winger, I was wondering whether the two could effectively work together. If the monarch was there purely to act as a figurehead and symbol of that particular country, surely there would be no problem?

I am a rape-advocate and a feminist.

[Tim Cornelis]

The government is what rules the state, basically. So obviously, neither will exist in communism.

Incidentally, there was this anarchist from Japan that advocated for the king/emperor of Japan to remain a symbolic figurehead after the revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Queen isn't really a major landowner to be honest. There are much more major landowners in the UK than the Queen. She's not, nor are any of her family, in the top ten according to Country Life (http://www.countrylife.co.uk/life-in-the-country/who-owns-britain-top-uk-landowners-20178). She owns the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prince of Wales owns the Duchy of Cornwall (worth about £1 billion between them), both bring in a moderate amount of income, relatively speaking. Neither bring in more than £20 million a year. These incomes go to subsidise her immediate family. They also own private residences such as Balmoral and Sandringham, so they have quite a sizeable property portfolio, but again, it's not particularly impressive by comparison.

The Crown Estate is owned by the state. Back in the day the Crown had to pay the wages of all Judges, Ambassadors and other high officials from the incomes gathered from the Crown Estate. By the time George III became King, the Crown was running at a loss. In exchange for the state taking over these payments and general management of the Estate, as well as an annual civil list payment, George relinquished direct ownership of the Crown Estate on behalf of all future Monarchs. Bit of a mistake really; it's worth over £8 billion now.

[p0is0n]

@Tim Cornelis or anyone else who wants to chime in (forgive me, the quote system seems to not work)

But does the central administration and coordination of societal services, e.g. the coordinated management of education, health, welfare, justice, infrastructural things (from something as "simple" as garbage and sewer to more complicated things such as water lines, energy, transportation) and so on and so on, remain?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I was under the impression that the government in the Marxist sense (as in communist society) was the mere administration of society, while the state specifically was an instrument of class rule. Maybe I was wrong.

To be honest, the only place I have encountered this use of the term "government" is RevLeft. And it always seems to be used to imply that the socialist society will have a state apparatus similar to the one present bourgeois states have, but that it won't constitute a state because society will be classless. Outside RL, "government" usually means the premier, ministers, ministerial departments, the office for the assessment of effects of ordinances and so on.


My interpretation of the quote by Engels is that since classes no longer exist, the state, as an instrument of class rule, simply ceases to exist because the premise for its existence has ceased to exist and by extension it no longer has a function, and is thus replaced by the simple "apolitical" administration of things. Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong. But it's not as if the socialist society is still going to have e.g. a ministry of finance, only an "apolitical" one. The organs of social administration will be radically different.


When you say the administration of the process of production, I assume you mean only the process of production - what about other vital societal services? What about logistical things? Surely they will be administered by a central body of persons? If yes, does this not qualify as government?

Direction of the processes of production and the administration of things, which means that, yes, there will be central coordination when it comes to things like distribution, maintenance, infrastructure, communications, and so on. I don't see how that's a government, though. The public power in the socialist society is more like a giant utilities company than a government. There is no police, no judiciary, no prisons, etc. etc.


But does the central administration and coordination of societal services, e.g. the coordinated management of education, health, welfare, justice, infrastructural things (from something as "simple" as garbage and sewer to more complicated things such as water lines, energy, transportation) and so on and so on, remain?

Education and healthcare are just services and, yes, the socialist society would organise to provide them, along with collective childcare etc. Justice has withered away in socialism. And why would there be "welfare" in socialism? It's a society of free access, it's not as if people are going to be impoverished and starving.

[p0is0n]

Education and healthcare are just services and, yes, the socialist society would organise to provide them, along with collective childcare etc. Justice has withered away in socialism. And why would there be "welfare" in socialism? It's a society of free access, it's not as if people are going to be impoverished and starving.

When you say that socialist society would organize to provide these services, how do you envision the practical reality of this organization to be like? Could there be a "Department for Health and Human Services"? Could there be a "Department for Education"? A "Department for Transportation", etc?

I assume, when you say that justice would wither away in socialism, you mean that the conditions that create crime would have ceased to exist, am I correct? But would you say all crime will cease to exist, even the crime that isn't motivated by social-economic reasons?

As for welfare, you're right, I was just generally listing basic government services in bourgeois society.

I don't really want to hijack this thread more than I've done, so I'll leave it at that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

When you say that socialist society would organize to provide these services, how do you envision the practical reality of this organization to be like? Could there be a "Department for Health and Human Services"? Could there be a "Department for Education"? A "Department for Transportation", etc?

Well, those are just names, aren't they? The point is what the structure behind the name is. I imagine there will be some sort of central council of some description, with delegates probably elected at mass meetings. To continue with the analogy to the utility company, this would be the equivalent of the board of directors. There would have to be administrative structures below that level - for example, the administration for medical services, or the chief committee for glass production. But these would simply carry out the decisions of the central council. They would not be policy-makers, like ministries today are. And they would not form a permanent bureaucracy but would be open to any member of society and would represent a form of public service on their part.

One thing I would say, and this is connected to the OP, is that there is absolutely no reason for and no place for any sort of "chief of state" position, any sort of king or president or caesar. The socialist administration is functional, it aims to demistify social relations instead of inventing new state rituals and new quasi-religions. That's another reason why even the r.d.o.t.p. can't be a monarchy - it's complete mysticism and semi-religious nonsense.


I assume, when you say that justice would wither away in socialism, you mean that the conditions that create crime would have ceased to exist, am I correct? But would you say all crime will cease to exist, even the crime that isn't motivated by social-economic reasons?

We have this discussion every so often. To summarise, because I don't want to get into long drawn-out arguments, I don't see a reason to assume crime would exist in socialism (by which I mean things like murder, rape etc., obviously crime as such doesn't exist when there are no laws and things like using stuff that no one is using and fucking other men up the arse will happen quite a lot). If things like bar fights and so on will continue to exist, they can be solved by people on the ground (as in fact most of these things are solved even today).

[PhoenixAsh]

I am a rape-advocate and a feminist.

Dude...no. Just don't go there. Don't play devils advocate.

[Lord Testicles]

@TFU (I can't directly quote you for some reason) The New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia) claims that the Queen legally owns one-sixth of the earth's land surface. Either The New Statesman or Country Life are way off the mark.

[The Feral Underclass]

@TFU (I can't directly quote you for some reason) The New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia) claims that the Queen legally owns one-sixth of the earth's land surface. Either The New Statesman or Country Life are way off the mark.

Well technically she does because she's the Queen of 16 nations (I don't know why that article says 32), but she doesn't literally own it. There are lots of things the Monarch legally is and can do. She can dissolve parliament whenever she wants and is Head of the armed forces for example, but in reality none of it means anything. She doesn't earn any money from this nominal legal status, nor can she do anything with it. It's not like she can just sell off Canada if she wants.

[Antiochus]

Well technically she does because she's the Queen of 16 nations (I don't know why that article says 32), but she doesn't literally own it. There are lots of things the Monarch legally is and can do. She can dissolve parliament whenever she wants and is Head of the armed forces for example, but in reality none of it means anything. She doesn't earn any money from this nominal legal status, nor can she do anything with it. It's not like she can just sell off Canada if she wants.


She can't possibly have the right to dissolve parliament today. The last English monarch that did that got his head lopped off. I mean an actual dissolution, not merely a transition from gov. to gov.

[The Feral Underclass]

She can't possibly have the right to dissolve parliament today. The last English monarch that did that got his head lopped off. I mean an actual dissolution, not merely a transition from gov. to gov.

She technically has the power to dissolve parliament whenever she wants. The Royal Prerogative gives her that authority. Of course, there are lots of reasons why she won't do that in practice. She also has to assent to all acts of parliament in order for them to become law, so if she so wished, she technically could veto legislation and dictate policy.

[Emmett Till]

Well technically she does because she's the Queen of 16 nations (I don't know why that article says 32), but she doesn't literally own it. There are lots of things the Monarch legally is and can do. She can dissolve parliament whenever she wants and is Head of the armed forces for example, but in reality none of it means anything. She doesn't earn any money from this nominal legal status, nor can she do anything with it. It's not like she can just sell off Canada if she wants.

In means nothing for as long as the British ruling class wants it to mean nothing. If the day comes when that is not true, all of a sudden it would mean everything.

As the Australians discovered when Whitlam messed with Pine Gap, the key CIA-NSA base in Australia in the 1970s, and the Queen resurrected her allegedly nonexistent meaningless historic powers and fired him as Australian prime minister.

I can assure you that when a revolution in England actually threatens, all of a sudden the British army will be taking its orders from the Queen and not give a damn what parliament happens to think about it, if they complain she will just send in the troops to dissolve it.

[Emmett Till]

She can't possibly have the right to dissolve parliament today. The last English monarch that did that got his head lopped off. I mean an actual dissolution, not merely a transition from gov. to gov.

Constitutionally, insofar as an English constitution exists (none on paper) the parliament has every right to cut off Queen Elizabeth's head if ever the mood should strike it. Regrettably, won't happen.